The Economist explains

Why is Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom?

IT IS almost a year since riots hit the streets of Belfast last December. They were caused by a motion to limit the number of days Britain's Union Jack flag flew on Belfast City Hall. Severe rioting lasted for two months and seemed to centre on the tricky question of why Northern Ireland, composed of six north-eastern counties in Ireland, is part of the United Kingdom. The Northern Irish have their own flags, culture and international sports teams, but do not live in an independent country. Why?

Ireland became part of the United Kingdom in 1801. But Ireland’s sectarian divisions, which had opened up during religious wars in the 17th century between Protestants and Catholics, were exacerbated by economic problems in the 19th century. Britain’s shift to free trade from the 1840s onwards mainly benefited the industrial north-east of Ulster, where Protestants made up a majority of the population. But the rest of the country, which was more reliant on agriculture, suffered badly from falling global food prices and the Irish Famine of 1845-50. The result was the rise of Irish nationalist movements, drawing much of their support from the Catholic south, which wanted a new Irish Parliament and to re-introduce protectionist measures. When William Gladstone, then Britain’s prime minister, proposed Irish legislative independence (called Home Rule) in 1885, the north-east exploded with sectarian rioting against his proposals. Ulster Protestants feared that “Home Rule means Rome Rule”, thinking they would lose the religious and economic freedoms they enjoyed as part of the United Kingdom by becoming a minority in a mainly Catholic Ireland. When the rest of Ireland gained independence as the “Irish Free State” in 1922, north-east Ulster did not want to join them. The British government was forced to partition the six most north-eastern counties of the new Irish state to form Northern Ireland, in fear that Protestant civil unrest in Ulster would otherwise turn into a civil war against the new state.

Northern Ireland has since witnessed severe sectarian violence between its Protestant majority and its Catholic minority, particularly during the "Troubles" of 1968-98. The Good Friday Agreement, signed in 1998 sought to end that. The Republic dropped its claim to the North and London declared the status of Northern Ireland would be determined by wishes of its people. The deal was broadly a success, but friction has continued sporadically since then. Yet most people in Northern Ireland still seem to want to remain part of the United Kingdom. A BBC poll earlier this year suggested that just 17% of people in Northern Ireland want to leave the United Kingdom. Economic reasons may partly explain this. The Northern Irish economy has outperformed the rest of Ireland since 2007 and living costs are lower than in the south. According to a study last year by CEBR, an economic consultancy, Northern Ireland enjoys a net subsidy of 29.4% of its GDP each year from Britain, resulting in a better welfare state than in the south. While health care in the north is free under the NHS, a trip to the doctor costs most people up to €75 ($100) south of the border. Northern Ireland's (selective) grammar schools are highly regarded, though some of its other schools are bad.

The greatest threat to Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom now comes from outside Ireland rather than within it. If Scotland votes for independence in a referendum due to be held in September 2014, what would happen to Northern Ireland? Its historic ties are to Scotland more than to England or Wales, but Scottish nationalists have thus far shown no interest in inheriting the province from the United Kingdom. Scottish independence might yet make Northern Ireland’s constitutional status a touchy subject again.

This is a very misleading article which glosses over some incredibly important facts. “Ireland’s sectarian divisions, which had opened up during religious wars in the 17th century” Excuse me but are you referring to the Tudor conquest of Ireland? You know when the British invaded Ireland and resorted to a scorch earth policy after the Irish had proved difficult to conquer? Are you talking about the plantations (arrival of protestant settlers) which saw to it that by the close of the 17th century the native Irish (catholics) owned less than 5% of the land and were subject to laws that Edmund Burke called: "a machine of wise and elaborate contrivance, as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man." Why does the article begin by hiding the truth? The Economist should remove this article.

This is an incredibly simplistic interpretation of a complex and sensitive historical issue. Firstly , yes Ireland became a part of the UK in 1801, but this is a largely irrelevant legislative event in the context of Britain,s 800 year occupation of Ireland. I assume this article was written by a well meaning British educated writer, because inferring causality for revolution from religious and economic factors completely misses the point (and I gather the UKs education system doesn't give a well grounded version of how the British Empire treated the nations it invaded). The economic imbalances were created by the oppressive occupation, the famine wasn't a famine in the natural definition of the word, food and resources were plentiful, the oppressive British occupation just made it so that average Irish people were malnourished and dependent on one crop in particular . Also stating 'North East ulster did not want join them is largely offensive to the to the 40+% of people who lived there and certainly didn't want to remain in the UK. While I appreciate this article wasn't written with intended bias or agenda, it is offensive to the the hundreds of thousands (millions if you include the famine) of Irish people who lost there lives struggling with British imperialism. I have come to expect better than this from the economist.

I can't be bothered hanging around and correcting this flawed article. I will leave with this: If 80% of Scotland votes for Independence will you partition Scotland to keep the unionists happy? If you wouldn't in Scotland case why in Ireland's?

This is a product of that school system that inculcated in children (at least until 1990s) the moronic view of Irish history best expressed as "800 years of oppression".

Irish Protestants are just as Irish as Irish Catholics.
The "British" never invaded. If anything, there was a Norman invasion (by invitation). England was not even a concept then, let alone Britain. Ireland, and the rest of what became the UK was subject to a feudal system and through warfare and oppression, power was centralised in London and Dublin. Eventually this process was complete in 1800 with power completely centralised in London and yes, dominated by Protestants.

But the Protestant/Catholic schism went right through Ireland, as well as England. The Protestant faction became dominant, especially after the Dutch invasion/coup in 1688 and yes, Catholics were dispossessed, becoming poorer. Ireland ended up as a desperately unequal place, with a tiny landed gentry made up of mostly (but not all!) Protestants. The subsequent economic collapse and horrific famines can be squarely blamed on British government mismanagement, not on acts of god like potato blight or world food prices. But after the famine the oppressed Catholic faction identified itself with growing cause of Irish Nationalism, itself part of a wider European nationalist movement that swept the continent in the 19th century.

Gradually the Irish Nationalist movement came to be dominated by Catholics until everyone came to believe that unless you were Catholic, you couldn't be "native Irish".

Events since partition have made this confusion worse.
The Protestant population in the South has declined greatly because of emigration, intermarriage with Catholics and the "Ne Temere" doctrine, which requires mixed marriages to bring up children as Catholics. The Catholic church grew in power that it came to almost dominate all aspects of society.

In the North, decades of abuse of power by the a sectarian Unionist government (itself a strain of extreme Nationalism), split the country ever deeper on religious grounds.

I wouldn't agree that it is all good either. Northern Ireland is at peace, but the place is still terribly divided. In the South, the Catholic Church has taken a hammering, but is still a huge force in control of education and health policy.

It's true, most of the Protestants you meet in the South will be well-off members of the middle class. But this is not always the case, there are a few poor ones too, even with surname names like Murphy, or McCarthy.

Sorry for the rant, but I can't help myself. Irish history is far too simple to be summed up as planters versus natives.

"Ireland’s sectarian divisions, which had opened up during religious wars in the 17th century between Protestants and Catholics, were exacerbated by economic problems in the 19th century."

is glossing over some things. Protestants came to Ireland when the British invaded and seized Irish lands. The land belonged to native Irish and then we came along a took it. IT was a long time ago but it is kinda a important point. The sectarian divisions weren't actually religious for the most part. It has been over economic, political and cultural power.

"The British government was forced to partition the six most north-eastern counties of the new Irish state to form Northern Ireland, in fear that Protestant civil unrest in Ulster would otherwise turn into a civil war"

really? out of the goodness of their hearts?

This would be a rather self serving interpretation of what and why things happened then.

At the time of the Act of Union the vast majority were still living under the Penal Laws to which Edmund Burke referred to and were denied the right to vote amongst most things. When they had the right to vote they made repeated attempts -starting with Daniel O'Connell to repeal the Union: the threat of violence was used by Britain to put a stop to the peaceful Repeal of the Union movement and in the middle of the 19th century was the 'famine' where one million "British" citizens died in the wealthiest country in the world: the UK of GB AND Ireland -(the British spent less than half of one percent of annual GDP for a Single year on relief -despite the their sectarian laws creating the socio economic circumstances of the crisis). Thereafter the Irish people made several attempts to regain their parliament by democratic means -the British ignored despite the clear will of the vast majority of Irish people. When the British agreed to "Home Rule" in the early 20th century they prepared for the discussions by supplying weapons to a unionist minority so that they could enforce partition and peddle it as a benign act to protect the Irish from civil war i.e. the people they had armed.

A tragedy lies in denying Irish people to live on their historic island as one. A medieval monarchy, standing on last leg, wishes to keep and protect that small piece of land separate purely on religious grounds. Catholics’ strange rituals must be standing in the way. Those islanders that prefer worship to confiscated London shrine are not true Irish but implanted.

Your reply is nothing but a desperate issueless rant. For your information, according to the distribution statistics, your church of “wife murderer” have exactly equal number of pedophiles and gays...but do not despair. Referring to Irish people as a “south separatists” is nothing but a scream of a fanatic. Next year when Scots will separate...are you going to call them “northern separatists”?

You've forgotten to mention how the Protestants got there in the first place. So, is it O.K. to send settlers into occupied territory, and then call it your own??? If it's O.K. for the Brits to do it, I guess it's O.K. for the Israelis to do it too. Right?

Hell, by the amount of Irish here in the UK. Ireland might as well rejoin the United Kingdom.
Our four nations have so much more in common than what divides us.
Not to mention the fact that I have gotten along great with every Irishman I have ever met.

I'm from South America and I don't know enough about irish history. But I have been in Ireland, rented a car with some friends in Galway and drove for many days from the Republic of Ireland to Belfast, the coast, (London)Derry and other small towns, and it's very dificult to see diferences between people, houses, the countryside, pubs, whisky factories, sports, etc. (except flags an signs).

So, you ask to yourself: if the nature and the ancient history are the same, why two countries? Considering the imperialist history of british, and thinking about places like India, South Africa and Malvinas, maybe the answer is given.

Excuse me, the Nine Years War was the largest conflict fought by England in the Elizabethan era. At the height of the conflict more than 18,000 soldiers were fighting in the English army in Ireland. The Irish won a string of victories from the Battle of Clontribet to Yellow Ford etc. This forced the English to send over a new Commander, the Earl of Essex who arrived in Ireland with over 17,000 English troops. He left Ireland in failure and was later executed by the English. Another commander was sent, Lord Mountjoy, who resorted to Scorch earth tactics to turn the tide of the war. The war in Ireland came very close to bankrupting the English exchequer by its close in 1603. According to you that doesn't count as an invasion? Are you for real?